No. 20-5581

Tatyana E. Drevaleva v. United States

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2020-09-03
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: case-dismissal civil-rights court-of-federal-claims due-process filing-fee indigent indigent-plaintiff procedural-due-process standing title-vii
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2020-12-04 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can the U.S. Court of Federal Claims compel an indigent Title VII plaintiff to pay a filing fee when the plaintiff doesn't have money and is financially ineligible to pay the fee?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : I. Questions to this Court. 1) Can the U.S. Court of Federal Claims compel an indigent Title VII Plaintiff to pay a filing fee at the time when the Plaintiff doesn’t have money at all, and the Plaintiff is financially ineligible to pay a filing fee? 2) Can the U.S. Court of Federal Claims compel the indigent Plaintiff to pay a filing fee “within 10 days” without identifying from what date the calculation of the time starts — from the date when the . Court issues an Order or from the date when the Plaintiff received this Order in mail? 3) Can the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on the basis that the Plaintiff failed to pay a filing fee within 10 days from the issuance of the Order if the Plaintiff filed a statement within seven days from the receiving of the Order in mail explaining that the Plaintiff didn’t have money to pay a filing fee at that moment, and the Plaintiff asked the Court to wait until I receive my salary? Page 2 of 26 II. _A list of all

Docket Entries

2020-12-07
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2020-11-10
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
2020-10-24
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2020-10-13
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2020-09-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-09-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-08-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 5, 2020)

Attorneys

Tayana E. Drevaleva
Tatyana E. Drevaleva — Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent